Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Monday, dismissed a petition filed by San Nutrition, a plaintiff alleging defamation against four YouTubers—Arpit Mangal, Kabir Grover, Manish Keshwani, and Avijit Roy. The case centered on balancing the freedom of speech and expression of the defendants with the plaintiff’s right to protect its reputation.

The plaintiff, represented by Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak, accused the defendants of defamation, trademark infringement, and product disparagement. According to the plaintiff, the defendants made false and malicious claims about their product’s nutritional content. The videos in question were said to misuse the plaintiff’s trademarks and copyrights, cite misleading and unverified laboratory reports, and promote rival brands without disclosure. The plaintiff argued that these actions were intended to harm their business and reputation.

However, the defendants, through Advocate Ramchandra Madan, contended that their actions were protected under the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression. The defendants maintained that their videos were based on factual reports from independent laboratories, aimed at providing constructive criticism and fostering public awareness. They argued that the videos were not defamatory, but rather fair comments supported by lab findings, and that their opinions were made in the public interest.

The court examined the reports used by Defendant No. 1, which indicated that the protein content in the plaintiff’s product was significantly lower than claimed. The plaintiff did not contest the accuracy of these reports, choosing instead to question the credibility of the laboratories that produced them. The court found the reports to be valid and ruled that the defendant had substantiated a prima facie defense of truth.

“He also invokes his right to freedom of speech enshrined under the Constitution in justification of this video and clarifies that through this video, he is only providing his opinion and his intent is not to malign any product” the court remarked. 

In considering the defense of fair comment, the court observed that the defendants’ comments were made in the public interest, especially given the relevance of nutritional content to public health. The defendants’ videos, which critiqued the plaintiff’s product, were based on test results from accredited laboratories and constituted fair comment. 

“The essence of his videos is only to educate the consumers, who could also be diabetic patients, students or athletes, that the protein content in the plaintiff’s product is much less than what is claimed and the carbohydrate is in excess of the claim made and to advise them to carefully examine and consider all factors before selecting any brand of protein powder for purchase”, the court noted. 

The court also noted that the use of harsh or satirical language, such as referring to the plaintiff’s product as “sub-standard,” did not invalidate the defense of fair comment, citing precedents where similar expressions were not considered defamatory.

“In my view, the word ‘ghatiya’ would mean nothing more than ‘sub-standard’/ ‘inferior’ in English. In the opinion of the defendant no.1 based on the aforesaid test results, the products of the plaintiff are sub-standard inasmuch as they are priced higher in comparison to the products of other brands and are not true to the claims made by the plaintiff… In my opinion, at the highest, the use of the term ‘ghatiya’ would be in the nature of an exaggeration or hyperbole, which would not be defamatory per se”, the court observed. 

Regarding claims of disparagement, the court ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish malice or any intent to harm. It was not shown that the impugned videos caused any actual damage to the plaintiff’s sales, and the defendants' reliance on laboratory results further supported their defense.

The plaintiff also sought to prove trademark infringement, arguing that the defendants used its registered mark in the videos. However, the court found that the defendants’ use of the trademark was limited to reviewing the product and did not fall under the scope of “use in the course of trade” as defined by the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court further clarified that the defendants’ actions did not constitute advertisement or commercial exploitation of the plaintiff’s mark.

“Clearly, in the present case, the defendants have not used the plaintiff’s marks, including by way of hashtags in the description of the impugned videos, in the course of trade. The plaintiff’s marks have been used by the defendants not in respect of their goods/ services, but only to review the plaintiff’s own goods”, the court held. 

In conclusion, the court ruled that the defendants’ actions were protected under the right to free speech. The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for defamation, disparagement, or trademark infringement. Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for an interim injunction, noting that granting such relief would unjustly restrict the defendants’ freedom of expression and deny the public access to important health-related information.

For Plaintiff: Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak with Advocates  Kangan Roda, Tanishq Sharma, R. Abhishek, Sarthak Sharma and Chirantan Priyadarshan
For Defendant: Advocates Ramchandra Madan, Tushar Nigam Aishwarya Kane, Sauhard Alung, Shuvam Bhattacharya, Yash Karunakaran, Vishwajeet Deshmukh and A. Mehra
Amicus Curiae: Advocates Aditya Gupta and Varun Pathak
Case Title: San Nutrition Private Limited v Arpit Mangal and Others (2025:DHC:2973)